Hilzoy mocks a column in the American Spectator. A former Reagan staffer wildly speculates that:
In this Obamaland vision the state would mandate that every heating and cooling system in a private dwelling include a "non-removable" FM receiver that would allow the government to decide the temperature inside your home.
"Wow," hilzoy boggles. "This has 'emerged as a proposal in California'??! Where? In a college dorm at 2am? Maybe a cocktail party? Definitely a sign of Obama's real intentions!"
But it's worse than that! PG&E has a voluntary program (not mandatory, as the Reagan staffer claims) called SmartAC. People who volunteer to join the program can help prevent blackouts by asking PG&E to install "A SmartAC programmable communicating thermostat [which] can be programmed to fit your lifestyle by choosing different temperatures and settings for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays.… During peak demand periods in the summer, the SmartAC Thermostat will receive a radio signal from PG&E, which will incrementally adjust the temperature upward by no more than 4 degrees."
The system also lets you adjust your own thermostat over the internet. Cool, huh? Note that this is not some nefarious plot imposed by the government, it's a voluntary program whereby people can team up to keep the lights on for everyone by saving power at key moments. If I had an air conditioner, I'd have one of these things installed. Not only would it be nice to be able to turn on my AC from work, so that it was cool when I got home, it'd be nice to have that $25 check PG&E would send me just for getting the thing installed.
This is exactly the sort of thing conservatives ought to support. It's a market-based, voluntary system, it conserves energy, and it's administered by a public utility, not by government regulation. And yet, you still have folks fantasizing about how the government might try to pry thermostats from their cold, cold hands.
- Log in to post comments
So, uh, is this bad because it is market based or is it good because it is, presumably, good for both the environment, society (in the form of decreased grid problems), and individual pocket books?
Or is it so good that government should mandate it through legislation for everyone?
This is very common in areas with hot summers. I work for Alliant Energy in Iowa and we have an alost identical program.
Actually, there was a proposal about a year ago to make the thermostats required under CA code and would have given PG&E control of home thermostats. The proposal made it into the press and was defeated, but the underlying speculation is not wrong. PG&E did actually try and legally mandate central thermostat control.
Hum, laura's claim there was(? is?) an attempt in California to mandate (albeit possibly with an opt-out) this sort of thing, at least for new(?) construction, appears to be valid, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/11/america/calif.php and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/12/MNHDUDAQ3.D…
Sure enough. The program was proposed, though control of the thermostats would have rested with the California Energy Commission, not PG&E.
Jim: Market-based is good sometimes, not others. The program over-all is good for the second group of reasons. Connecting it to clear incentives makes sense. After the program exists for a while, people may decide it isn't actually that Orwellian, and kinks will be ironed out, and the day may come when mandating the use of such thermostats would be appropriate (with the option, already extant under the current system, of opting out), or maintaining it as a voluntary system with increasingly strong incentives to join. Whatever. This seems fairly harmless.
If the government or a utility has to institute rolling blackouts, it's a much bigger intrusion on someone's home than if the government or a utility scales back AC usage. By that standard, the Orwellian charge could actually work in favor of mandating these thermostats, not the other way around. I can see both sides of this, and don't feel strongly enough to make up my mind about whether mandating the use of these thermostats is a good or bad idea.
I would point out that when Enron was promoting this, it was world-beating innovation. Truly, to be conservative is to be hypocritical.
Wow, this is an amazingly bad idea. Whether or not it would actually do any good, one thing is for sure, having a system that is centrally controlled over an insecure channel that has a direct effect on critical infrastructure as well as peoples health and lives should be considered criminal.
Wow, this is an amazingly bad idea. Whether or not it would actually do any good, one thing is for sure, having a system that is centrally controlled over an insecure channel that has a direct effect on critical infrastructure as well as peoples health and lives should be considered criminal.
Well, my 89-year-old mother has a safety alarm that communicates with an alert service (a private company) over the phone line. She has a range of options that include turning it off, having the service contact her only if she pushes the alarm button, or having the service contact her either once or twice a day whether she pushes the alarm or not. She can cancel her subscription at any time.
Would you call this "criminal?" (Because it's essentially the same as the SmartAC system -- it's not forced on her by the government, it's not encrypted, and she can opt out.) Given that my mother has some health problems, lives alone, and refuses to move, we prefer to call it "a potentially life-saving choice."
Regarding government mandates for SmartAC-like systems -- I'm not convinced that's currently a good idea, but waht's being discussed is testing it out via consumer choice. And, who knows -- leaving it to consumer choice may turn out to be very effective. We shouldn't be afraid of trying a consumer option because of nebulous fears that the government will force us to do it later.
In some areas, (such as the Central Valley) PG&E does not even ask to install a new thermostat. They ask to install a device on the external air conditioning unit that will reduce it consumption during peak loads. By increasing its ability to manage peak loads, PG&E can reduce the number of power plants it needs to build. Some of those new plants would only operate a few days a year at unusually high peak demand.
If my house had AC I'd totally participate, but luckily AC isn't too important here. I think it's interesting how PG&E works hard at getting us here to use less energy. I mean, it's their product, and in most industries you try to get people to consume more, but that's obviously not the case with the Power industry.
And the key here, which has been noted above, is that I'd rather have my AC turned off than have rolling blackouts, which I've definitely experienced. And I really don't see much of a 'health concern', I mean there is the issue with the elderly, but I don't see the power company or government agency wanting to put anyone at risk. We're talking about peak loads, and once again, if there's a rolling blackout, you won't get AC anyway, so whats the difference?
And I do not think this should be government mandated, but a voluntary program, as it is. PG&E does a good job of giving money to those that are conserving energy, they took away my old crappy fridge and gave me a check for replacing it with an Energy Star certified unit. Thanks PG&E for taking my old fridge away for me!
You have got to make a choice here: 1. Use less power (thermostats and demand response) 2. Suffer through rolling black outs or 3. Build more power plants to handle peak demand.
You can only choose one.
This isn't the typical American fashion where if you don't have enough of something you just borrow more. Don't have enough money for a tv? Put it on your credit card. Electricity doesn't work like that, demand can not exceed capacity or the system shuts down. If we don't find a way to either produce more power or use less during periods of peak demand we will all suffer through rolling blackouts.